Menu
Use when a completed change is high-risk, crosses subsystem boundaries, or the user explicitly requests independent review. Do NOT use by default for low- or medium-risk changes.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Based on SOC occupation classification
Use when a request leaves material product, architecture, behavior, or scope decisions unresolved. Do NOT use for approved, well-bounded implementation work.
Use when 2 or more substantial tasks are independent, have disjoint state, and parallel execution will save meaningful time. Do NOT use for coupled or sequential work.
Use when implementing an approved written plan with dependent tasks in the current session. Do NOT use when the plan is missing, unapproved, or naturally parallel.
Use when verified implementation is ready and the user must choose whether to keep, merge, or publish the branch. Do NOT use before applicable checks pass.
Use when receiving code review feedback that may be unclear or technically questionable and needs verification. Do NOT use for an unrequested general code review.
Use when the user requests delegated implementation or multiple substantial tasks are genuinely independent without shared state. Do NOT use for coupled or ordinary single-task work.
| name | requesting-code-review |
| version | 6.2.0 |
| category | workflow |
| description | Use when a completed change is high-risk, crosses subsystem boundaries, or the user explicitly requests independent review. Do NOT use by default for low- or medium-risk changes. |
Independent review is a targeted risk control, not a ceremony after every task.
Read ../using-superpowers/references/risk-policy.md.
Do not dispatch a reviewer after each task, for mechanical changes, or merely because subagents are available.
Give the reviewer:
Do not pass arbitrary conversation history. Do not ask the reviewer to rerun passing checks without a concrete reason.
Minor style preferences do not start another loop. Disputed findings are adjudicated by technical evidence, not reviewer repetition.
Template: code-reviewer.md
